Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Poker Pack


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Tone 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Poker Pack

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article should have been speedied as it was created by a single purpose account as a promotional advert. The notable individuals mentioned have articles. Existing article has no actual content except a list of accomplishmenst of the different individuals. Online mentions are press releases. 2005 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a notable poker group. The page needs sourcing and cleaning up but is primarily factual. Plenty of sources available - etc TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Four of those six links are press releases or only mention the group in passing. Two could meet the minimum qualification for notability if someone was being generous.  However, the entire existing article is a COI advert.  A short stub could be made listing the players and using the Pokerlistings and Tightpoker articles as references. 2005 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine stub it (or I can in due course) because certainly the 'Tournament Success' section is OTT and unnecessary. I accept that there is a COI and I'm not defending the present form of the page. The point that I'm making is that this group is notable in poker circles and it is for editorial action, not deletion, to turn this into an objective article. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong delete I fail to see the relevance or notability. Not every group of people on the planet merits an entry here. B.Rossow talk contr 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.